Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marion Jones was an astounding Olympian sprinter who captured five Gold
medals. She was the darling of not only the international sports world but of
the American people as well. Then the world collapsed around this charming
sports figure. In 2003 a federal criminal investigation was initiated in
Northern California concerning the distribution of anabolic steroids, other
illegal performance-enhancing drugs, and related money-laundering
activities. The investigation centered on Balco Laboratories, a corporation
that performed blood-tests for athletes.
On October 5, 2006 Jones entered a guilty plea to one count of the federal
indictment that charged her with making FALSE STATEMENTS to a
federal agent, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. This statute, in pertinent part,
provides:
“shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Jones’ indictment and plea stunned the nation. But that was just beginning
for the sports world. On November 15, 2007 a federal grand jury indicted
Major League Baseball’s home run king Barry Bonds for PERJURY AND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in connection with the same Balco
investigation and his long-rumored use of performance-enhancement drugs,
including “clear.” Although not unexpected, the Bonds indictment
nonetheless rocked the sports world coming on the heels of the Jones guilty
plea.
The stakes are high. Both men have effectively accused the other of lying.
The stakes were made even higher on January 11, 2008 when U.S. District
Judge Kenneth Karas sentenced Jones to six months in prison and two years
of community service for making false statements about her steroid use.
"There is a very strong argument that incarceration may make others think
twice and show that no one is above the legal obligation to tell the truth,"
Karas said.
Clemens and McNamee face the same threat of imprisonment if either man
lies to Congress.
Legal experts are convinced one of the men will lie to Congress.
“They are right there, sitting on the horns of a dilemma,” Abrams told
Newsday, “and when you’re sitting on horns … it’s uncomfortable.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1621, was enacted “in an effort to keep the course of justice free from the
pollution of perjury.” See: United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 68
(1951). See also: Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973).
18 U.S.C. § 1621 applies only to the witness who “willfully … states … any
material matter which he does not believe to be true.” The defendant in
Bronston testified in a bankruptcy proceeding about the extent and location
of his company’s assets. Id., 409 U.S. at 354. The defendant responded to
the following questions asked by an attorney representing a creditor in the
proceedings:
"Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?
"A. No, sir.
"Q. Have you ever?
"A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.
"Q. Have you any nominees who have bank accounts in Swiss banks?
"A. No, sir.
"Q. Have you ever?
"A. No, sir."
Id.
It was clearly established that the defendant had a personal bank account at
the International Credit Bank in Geneva, Switzerland for a period of nearly
five years. It was also clearly established that defendant’s testimony was
literally truthful on the following points:
“It is no answer to say that here the jury found that petitioner intended to
mislead his examiner. A jury should not be permitted to engage in
conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face,
was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the
witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether ‘he does not
believe [his answer] to be true.’ To hold otherwise would be to inject a new
and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.
Witnesses would be unsure of the extent of their responsibility for the
misunderstandings and inadequacies of examiners, and might well fear
having that responsibility tested by a jury under the vague rubric of ‘intent to
mislead’ or ‘perjury by implication.’ Id., 409 U.S. 358-59
It is interesting that the committee did not ask the Justice Department to
indict Palmeiro for perjury. He testified under oath that he had never used
steroids but later tested positive for their use. Palmeiro offered the same
story that Barry Bonds had given to the public – someone else (Tejeda) gave
him a substance that he did not know was steroids (vitamin B-12 laced with
the drugs). That explanation was obviously sufficient to avert a call by
Waxman for a perjury charge against him.
The Justice Department will now have to weigh whether it wants to enter a
court of law against Tejeda with the steroid positive-tested Palmeiro and the
admitted steroids-distributor Piatt. That certainly would not be the kind of
ideal evidence upon which the government would want to base a perjury
prosecution. It is for this reason that one can conclude that the committee is
simply using the Tejeda matter to put additional pressure on Rogers
Clemens and Brian McNamee before the two men make their appearance
before the committee.
The recent announcements that the FBI has launched an investigation into
the Tejeda matter and that former NFL pro bowler Dana Stubbfield entered a
guilty plea in a federal court in San Francisco to a 18 U.S.C. § 1001
violation certainly adds to the legal pressure in the upcoming
Clemens/McNamee congressional appearance. Like Jones, Stubblefield lied
to a federal agent when he said he had never used steroids associated with
Balco and its founder Victor Conte. While Stubblefield’s plea deal calls for a
sentence of zero to six months in prison, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston
informed the former defensive lineman that she was not bound by the deal
and could sentence him to five years.
Texas Law
The Texas Penal Code has two offenses relating to making false statements
or giving false testimony. Tex. Penal Code § 37.02 defines “perjury” as
follows:
“(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with
knowledge of the statement's meaning:
“(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false
statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by
law to be made under oath; or
“(2) He makes a false unworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice
and Remedies Code.
To secure a conviction for aggravated perjury, the State must establish the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
See: Tex. Penal Code §§ 3702-03. See also: Mice v. State, 91 S.W.3d 810,
822 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002). In order to establish these
elements,
the appeals court in Chandler v. State, 756 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.App. –Corpus
Christi 1988) held that Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 38.18 requires that the
State produce more than one witness to obtain a conviction for either perjury
or aggravated perjury. Id., at 829. See also: McGuire v. State, 707 S.W.2d
223 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d).
For all those people in the State of Texas, and the rest of the nation, who
believe Roger Clemens has lied about alleged steroid use, it should be
pointed out that he could not be convicted in this state based solely on the
testimony of Brian McNamee. The Texas Legislature had the wisdom to
protect every Texan from being convicted of making a false statement based
solely on the testimony of one person.
Nonetheless, criminal defense attorneys adhere to one fundamental
principle: no one should speak to any investigative body or agency outside
the presence of legal counsel. Perjury is premised on a single axiom: a bell
cannot be unrung. The presence of an attorney guides the individual down
the slippery slope of interrogation – and that is precisely why Roger
Clemens’ attorney, Rusty Hardin, will be present when the baseball great
testifies before the congressional committee next month.